Author: Anand Sekhar, Intern at Student of the BAR, Student of SDM Law College, Mangalore.
Editor: Vidya B Puthran, Student of the BAR.
Widely misunderstood concepts on legal advocacy have led to more illusionary conclusions on the public that "lawyers are liars". Are they all really?. It should not be generalized like this. When you do it, an entire profession - which has molded the great architectures of the nation - is dragged into the shades. The very same question was shot at me on many occasions during my school days whenever it was revealed that my father was an advocate. Vivid Word of Mouth and cinemas also plays a crucial role in triggering the people to presume so.
Usual court room movie sequences probably have an advocate who stands with the villains throwing dreadful lies. The first expected setback for the protagonist or for the advocate appearing for the protagonist, creates an emotion against the advocate who appears for the villain. The one who appears for the negative characters are portrayed naturally in negative shade having sheer talent and tendency to manipulate the court is highlighted.
Even if the film ends with the usual melodramatic - justice served 'happy ending', through my experience I observed that, it is the image of an advocate with the negative shade is what imprinted in the minds of the people in a deeper sense. This image is later transferred from one person to another through different mediums. As mentioned above, 'Word of Mouth' is one good medium where we find the scope for a rumour spread. Even though the online platforms have emerged with time, I didn't find any changes in targeting a particular profession, I have noticed several attacks on sections, such as Judiciary or advocacy as a whole.
It's debatable whether the aforesaid elements play a key role in portraying a profession in such a way or not. But let's not ignore the fact that misconceptions and fake news spread at 50% more speed than truth and real news. Among them stands this taboo on lawyers. But I would like to point out that the lawyers are not treated by the society in a mean way. Great respect is given to them in spite of this misconception. What leads to this contrast? People do realize that solely lying won't serve justice. But still the old fashioned notion pricks.
After some time, the same question was directed to me, when I decided to take up law after my graduation on Journalism and Mass Communication. This time it was in a much more diplomatic manner, "Shouldn't you be good at lying, when you take up law"?. I was yet again amazed to realize that this taboo still continues to exist. I tried to explain how it really works and how different it is from the movies.
Whenever I try to explain the reality of how things work at court, I don't deny that there are liars too. As right as this English metaphor points out, “There are lawyers, good lawyers, and liars”. The problem that has to be dealt with is the ‘generalization’. My privilege was to observe a good lawyer - my father, and his role models.
A mere interpretation on the evidence, pleading for bail or argument for acquittal can't be counted as a lie. It's a complex mix of skill and knowledge one attains through hard work and experience. When an advocate interprets, he won't deem it as truth or false just as the same way a person interprets an art. The only thing matters here is whether the arguments are legitimate or not. The lawyer probably is aware of the chances that their arguments might get rejected or accepted. They might even know that they don't stand a chance. But still they appear and that is what they are bound to do. When we put it in simple words, the process that happens in the court, is much like a team effort of advocates, police, and the judge to seek the truth and provide justice. But, it is also important to consider the concept of free trial before the court. A free trial is the most basic yet an important process to provide justice. A trail can be only commenced if there's a legal denial of the accusation. Denial is an essential procedure in the criminal law. Such a denial should be viewed in a legal sense and it does not amount to a "lie" as widely misunderstood.
If there is no 'Denial', there won't be a process of trail. Imagine a process of judicial system which convicts the accused by mere confession and by not a free trial? Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer writes in his autobiography on one such experience. He explains an incident which occurred in 1937 when he was working as an Apprentice. A capital punishment ordered by Sessions Court Kozhikode was returned for fresh consideration as the court felt free trail didn't took place because of an unmatured cross examination . As a result, Krishna Iyer's father who was a famous lawyer at that time, was assigned for cross examination. The same Judge who convicted the accused, reversed his judgement and acquitted him. The difference a free trial brought in this case was huge. There is a long gap between a “hang till death” and “set for free”, perhaps that's why a fair trial is essential.
When we tempt ourselves to focus largely on the negative aspects, we comfortably ignore the other side. The side of a legal practitioner who fights for justice is often tough to find in movies. I was 'privileged' to witness some of those in real life. Among them, one incident brings pain and relief at the same time. An accident case was handled by my father Adv. P. K. Chandrasekharan, 2 and a half years back. Normally, profession related chapters won't find a place in the family. But whenever a situation arose for short travel, I was picked on most occasions to make a drive. In such circumstances, I might come to know some case facts. Among one such day, a short drive ended in front of a small house. My father explained me some details about a person who met with an accident - whom we were going to meet.
It was a young man who once worked in Dubai, around 26 years of age. He met with an accident in Kerala, while he was on vacation. The accident ended up making him partially paralyzed and also resulted in an injury in brain which affected his memory. It was not at all an easy task for me to meet such a person almost of my age, whose future is in vain. We got there to inform him and family that we have won the case and a huge compensation amount is granted.
The compensation no matter how big, I felt it won't be equal to what they have lost. My father explained the situation to them, a little relief appeared on their faces. My father sat near this man, and told him not to worry. He informed the patient that the court had granted an amount sufficient to give him the best treatment. In an attempt to console him, he further said that everything will be alright. The man smiled of joy and nodded. After a couple of minutes, I noticed him looking at my father for sometime. The patient asked, "Where's the ambulance". He then added, " I am feeling alright now, don't have much pain too, can I continue to stay at my home?. I don't want to go to hospital". My father burst into tears. I later connected the dots. He was wearing a white shirt - an outfit advocates usually wear. The patient forgot that my father was a lawyer and instead he presumed seeing the outfits, that he was from the hospital and came to take him back for treatments. I couldn't speak for sometime. I drove back, and things came back normal for me. There was considerable toil behind attaining such compensation. It was just one among the cases that he appeared. There was an emotional connection with the client. In some cases it happens. I have seen people in the advocacy profession fighting hard for justice. Like one in many, what I saw was yet another unnoticed phase of legal practicing. Also, not remembered by many.
Despite all the criticisms, we are all bound to have basic ideas on how things really work. Or else, at least we should be able to identify and reject misleading factors. Once a lawyer is enrolled and starts the practice, they are subjected to ethical rules that recurrently regulate their policies and practices on law. Some might undermine these, not all. An advocate is also an officer of the court, who is bound not to mislead the court. At the same time, a lawyer has the duty to represent his or her client to the fullest. There should be a balance between them. When this balance is lost, people tend to recall, there are lawyers, good lawyers, and liars.
Comentarios